Proposal to end pleas of "exceptional hardship."

[TrevA]

The perpetrator of this foul deed (discussed in a thread here at the time) got off because he was on long term disability benefits and his wife was his registered carer...



Don't know if that fell under the 'exceptional hardship' category but I suppose it did.

That’s not quite correct. He was charged with, and found guilty of failing to declare the driver of the vehicle. I took a particular interest in this case because it happened virtually outside my office, which is behind the BBC building in the video.

[thirdcrank]

AIUI, that case was not about totting up but it does illustrate the need for evidence, particularly evidence of identification for their to be a prosecution. With knowledge of the reg details of a vehicle alleged to have been used in the commission of a "driving offence" (my words) the police can serve a notice on the registered keeper requiring identification of the user at the time of the offence. If the reg keeper names somebody else, then they will get a notice and so on until either the user is identified or the last person receiving a notice - who may be the first to do so - fails to give a name. Then they are likely to be prosecuted for failing to name the user, with the defence that they didn't know. It is an administrative type of offence. There may be other evidence of identification sufficient for a prosecution.

I think totting-up only comes into this if the registered keeper has a fleet of vehicles and somebody gets a lot of endorsements for not supplying the info

[kylecycler]

Yes, sorry, I misremembered that case. The way the victim described the court case, though, there was something fishy about it that didn't quite add up - the perpetrator seemed ridiculously confident that he'd get off lightly, although maybe that was simply because it couldn't be proven who was driving and that would be the loophole, as turned out to be the case.

I think it was just that everyone at the time, including me, presumably TrevA, and other folk on here, was speculating about it as the process was going on and before it was resolved. IIRC, and again this might be wrong although I think this bit is right, the swanky new Volvo was a courtesy car from a dealership and the couple's car was a Motability car which was in being serviced or repaired. The husband was certainly classified as disabled, according to the victim in his description of the court case, although he had no visible disabilities, and his wife was his registered carer.

I thought that if he'd lost his licence, as he undoubtedly should have, that might have been considered 'exceptional hardship' because of his disability and maybe that influenced the court's decision, but that was wrong - I think I just let my imagination get away from me - he got off on a technicality (even if he had lost his licence, his wife could still just have driven him around anyway).

[thirdcrank]

A courtesy car is just the type of case where the s 172 procedure for identifying the driver can come unstuck in that the registered keeper can only reasonably be expected to name the driver who they lent the car to. When they have named that person, they will in turn get a notice. If they are prosecuted for not providing the info here's the main defence:

• (4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/19 ... ection/172

"Exceptional hardship" is a reason for not disqualifying under "totting-up" which only applies if, after conviction a driver has 12 points on their licence (subject to various twiddly bits.) Being a carer might be grounds for pleading that disqualification would cause exceptional hardship.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/section/35

The Sentencing Council Guidelines already linked by Jdsk are here for reference
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/ex ... ification/

[fastpedaller]

I've always thought that anyone who considers they 'can't do without their car' should be driving with even more care than 'normal'. I'm not suggesting others should be blase' about their driving of course......... reminds me of when the Fire Service personnel went on strike (or limited duties, I can't recall which) and we were told via TV adverts to "be very careful we don't set our houses alight" as if we usually didn't take care

[Mike Sales]

I've always thought that anyone who considers they 'can't do without their car' should be driving with even more care than 'normal'. I'm not suggesting others should be blase' about their driving of course......... reminds me of when the Fire Service personnel went on strike (or limited duties, I can't recall which) and we were told via TV adverts to "be very careful we don't set our houses alight" as if we usually didn't take care

A similat thought occurs when one sees those signs informing others of babies or show dogs aboard.
"Well, in that case I won't run into you."

[CathM]

Quite: I used to work in a rural area in NE Scotland; our department’s van driver was very strict about keeping to the rules of the road (as were the rest of us of course), both at work and in his own car. He was a decent human being who would have hated to cause harm to anyone anyway, but he also often used to say that he knew that if he lost his licence he’d lose his job immediately. I’ve lost touch with him but I know he would have no time for anyone who knowingly broke the rules and expected to be let off!

[MikeF]

I've always thought that anyone who considers they 'can't do without their car' should be driving with even more care than 'normal'. I'm not suggesting others should be blase' about their driving of course......... reminds me of when the Fire Service personnel went on strike (or limited duties, I can't recall which) and we were told via TV adverts to "be very careful we don't set our houses alight" as if we usually didn't take care

A similat thought occurs when one sees those signs informing others of babies or show dogs aboard.
"Well, in that case I won't run into you."

I don't think that's their intended purpose, but many owners seem to think it is.

[gaz]

I used the Cycling UK pro-forma to email my MP. He has responded, indicating his support for the current 'exceptional hardship' arrangements .

[CathM]

I also wrote to my MP using CUK's wording but with a few additional comments. He replied yesterday saying that he thought it was unlikely that the government would consider this amendment given the number of other proposed amendments (I imagine he's referring mainly to the restrictions on the right to protest) but that he agrees that the law needs to be improved and said that he'd written to the Secretary of State urging him to "commit the Government to find an alternative method to introduce [the amendment] into law".

I'm not sure what effect this will have, or how long it might take to enact if it has any, but at least he acknowledges the problem.

[thirdcrank]

I think that in relation to both "loopholes" and pleas of "exceptional hardship" a lot of this concerns perception. ie It's about what people believe, rather than what really happens.

The suggestion that there's a clever defence to every driving prosecution, so long as you go to the right learned friend is absurd, but seems widely believed. If I'm right, then any deterrent effect of the (diminishing) risk of incurring a penalty must be reduced. Then, with the encouragement of information and suggestions on social media, some people being investigated for alleged offences may be encouraged to create their own loopholes. eg We had a recent thread where a driver nominated somebody in prison as the driver; IMO an indication of how easy this is assumed to be.

viewtopic.php?p=1623357#p1623357

The thinking behind totting-up is that it not only punishes repeat offenders, but does so in a predictable way. If there's a widespread belief that the right smooth-talking advocate can ensure you can continue to drive, then the deterrent effect of totting-up risks being diminished, even if the belief is largely mistaken